So I was more than a little surprised, when I saw that Wikileaks* *had posted a classified report, outlining how the Warlock Red and Warlock Green jammers work with — and interfere with — military communications systems. The report, dated 2004, gives specific information about how the jammers function, their radiated power and which frequencies they stop. That Baghdad bomb tech would've put his fist through a wall, if he saw it out in public.

But still, the leaked report raises important questions about what information — if any — is too sensitive to disclose.

Steven Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists' longtime advocate for open government, believes the site has gone too far. "Wikileaks says that it publishes restricted documents that are 'of substantial political, diplomatic or ethical significance.' Its publication makes sense only from the perspective that all secrecy is wrong and should be resisted. It's not a perspective that I share."

Wikileaks* co-founder Julian Assange, not surprisingly, has a completely different take. "Wikileaks *represents whistleblowers in the way that lawyers represent their clients — fairly and impartially. Our 'job'is to safely and impartially conduct the whistleblower's message to the public, not to inject our own nationality or beliefs," he tells Danger Room.

It's not the first time the site has posted secret material. And, as he makes clear, it won't be the last.

All disclosures come from a source with access and motivation, which won't go away if we didn't publish.... When disclosures are driven underground, affected parties have no right of reply or ability to defend themselves ...

As for this document, U.S. Soldiers are not happy that literally billions have gone on these jammers, with apparently little thought going into how soldiers are going to communicate, after they have been turned on.

So who's right: Aftergood or Assange? Are there limits to what should be published? Or should all information be free, no matter what? Sound off in the comments.